|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20618 |  Kerrick (127) Jul 01, 2008 - 09:49 am » Edited on Jul 01, 2008 - 09:50 am
| I have a dual boot system with vista 64 ultimate and xp pro on an E8400 core2, 8800gt and 4gb ram. I haven't booted back into xp since the install and testing. There is no measurable difference between the two in gaming at all.
the only complaint I have is with adobe, they still don't have a flash player compatible with any 64bit browsers, so I have to use 32bit explorer! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20617 | Kerrick (127) Jun 29, 2008 - 04:31 am
| who really cares? Gaming is not about stellar graphics that bog down computers. It's about GAMEPLAY!! I can deal with not so great graphics if the gameplay is there, but I cannot deal with bad gameplay, even if the graphics are superb!!
that being said, blizzards graphics have always been good for the types of games they make. And you criticize WoW, but the graphics are very well done. Not to mention the fact that the game is 4 years old now and needed to run on the widest possible range of systems. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20598 | Kerrick (127) Jun 26, 2008 - 05:51 am
| | no it's not. Vista is a very very good os. This is just an admission that computers that came with xp in the last few years are so powerful that there is no need for people to go out and buy a new computer with vista. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20596 | Kerrick (127) Jun 25, 2008 - 01:16 pm
| | Too bad they stopped testing MINIMUM framerates!! A lot of sites claimed the 3870x2 was a great card because of it's high average framerates in games. But the reality is, it suffered big time drops in framerates occasionaly. I wonder if the same is true of this newest card? Even here at fs when they tested it, the 3870x2 would drop into the teens while the 8800's would drop to 50 in the same game!! The 9800 may still be better if it can keep the minimum framerates higher, as it's the minimums that are the game killers!! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20589 | Kerrick (127) Jun 25, 2008 - 05:35 am
| exactly!! Even not so great games become a lot of fun if you can play co-op with a spouse or friend at home, or over the internet with something like vent or ts. And great games become not so great when you discover that you have to play by yourself, which isn't much fun for a lot of us.
Cooperative play is about the only type of games I want to play anymore! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20522 | Kerrick (127) Jun 05, 2008 - 05:02 am
| | one little problem I see. You also have to carry around a second external monitor to run this on. If you leave this at home and only use the laptop for work while travelling and leave the gaming monitor at home it's one thing. But if you want to fire up a 3d game somewhere else, you're screwed unless you have an external monitor with you. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20446 | Kerrick (127) May 08, 2008 - 04:48 am
| | as long as id doesn't screw us again and leave coop play out it's all good. No coop play will make it suck!! We still play doom & doom 2 once in a while cooperatively, doom3 got played thru once and then put on the shelf. If you can't have fun with your friends, what's the point? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20394 | Kerrick (127) Apr 24, 2008 - 04:54 am » Edited on Apr 24, 2008 - 05:01 am
| no, they mean the 486sx. No game at all used the fp unit in the chips. The 486sx was a great chip for home users. There was absolutely no difference in performance at all between the 486sx and 486dx for 99% of home users, especially gamers. You were too young to really know apparently at the time. The fp unit was just a waste of money for gamers.
You must be thinking of the 386sx, which really was crippled compared to the 386dx. the 386sx was only 16 bit comparedt to the 32bit 386dx. And the 386dx did not have a fpu either.
and also, comparing the 486sx to the phenom is not good. The 486sx did not have a disabled or broken fp unit. The chips were made without the fp unit to reduce costs.
and as for the 3 core phenom, like was already said. this is a good idea if the price is right, why throw the chip out if 3 of the 4 cores still work? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20223 | Kerrick (127) Mar 31, 2008 - 04:41 am » Edited on Mar 31, 2008 - 05:21 am
| » crysis test
The conclusion that this article comes to about crysis and multithreading is a little off base I believe.
here is the quote:
"If anything, our benchmarks show that really isn’t the case. In fact, the Core 2 Duo again tears through our timedemo test faster than anything else at 800x600. Given the overclocked result at that resolution, we’re going to guess processing power isn’t the limiting factor there."
I would say that is a bit off. Considering that the ai is disabled in timedemos that is a big conclusion to jump to. I have seen another review that shows the same thing, timedemo's run better on a dual core. But when the game was actually tested with the ai and physics running the quad core's came out on top. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20203 | Kerrick (127) Mar 28, 2008 - 10:09 am
| | It's says a certain percentage of the crashes were caused by these things, but the percentage of actual crashes compared to the installed base is not that high. Most of those high percentages were probably the same people crashing over and over. I've been running vista 64 ultimate for a month now on an nvidia 780i mobo and 8800 gt video card, got sp1 the day after it was out. Have not had a single crash yet. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20055 | Kerrick (127) Mar 20, 2008 - 04:53 am
| why? bluray was/is too expensive. The only reason I went hd is because I needed a new dvd player, and the hd players for $100 with 10 free movies just couldn't be passed up.
nobody is going to take best buy up on this. get a whole $50 to trade in the player and then have a bunch of movies that will cost you $200-$300 to replace if you have to buy them blu ray? I don't think so. And since most of the hd movies I got have the movie in both hd and dvd I can still watch them if the hd player breaks just by getting another cheap dvd player. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20071 | Kerrick (127) Mar 20, 2008 - 04:48 am
| lotro may keep pumping things out, but the game itself still sucks. I played it in beta, thought it was fun for a couple months, then gave up on it, gameplay was severely lacking. the "pretty" graphics, don't make up for lame gameplay and poor animations and poor netcode.
I just bought the game at best buy for $20 to see if it was better than in beta, the netcode is a bit better, but gameplay still sucks.
That being said, WoW is starting to suck also. I know they are aiming for the casual player, but they went way overboard. Now things are way too easy. But it is still a much better game than lotro will ever be I'm afraid. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19941 | Kerrick (127) Mar 13, 2008 - 05:03 am
| | Nowhere did he say it's not a big deal affecting sales. All he said basically was that they would rather not inconvenience the paying players which is more important than trying to stop pirates, since most copy protection doesn't faze them anyway. Piracy is huge, and is affecting all aspects of the computer gaming industry. It's a shame that all the pirates here at this site think that this somehow say's that piracy isn't affecting the industry. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
